Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)
detail from
‘Nighthawks’…Edward Hopper, of course
In our Week ahead:
Wakefield Doctrine: principles (and such)
Wakefield Doctrine: funny shit (to us, anyway)
Wakefield Doctrine: video blog (more of that direct, personable and exciting driving context)
Wakefield Doctrine: video chats (Friday Night for sure, will try for Sunday morning as well)
So lets get started!
On this past Saturday’s Night Drive Call-in we were discussing rogers. Not unusual. We often discuss rogers because they are much more difficult for a clark to ‘understand’ than is a scott or another clark.
Consider the challenge we face when attempting to ‘understand’ a person who is inhabiting a worldview that is different from ours. the thing about worldviews is that, not only are they different from each other, but they are fundamentally, totally and completely different… in their basic essential premise. you know how it helps, when trying to distinguish between the three personality types, to remember that: clarks think, scotts act and rogers feel? Well, I’ll suggest that you try to keep in mind how literal we are being with this meme.
clarks think: (a) clark’s relationship with their world is grounded in the premise that ‘the world’ is essentially rational, that the person with a predominant clarklike worldview expects it to make sense, be understandable, be (somewhat) predictable and, therefore, fit into a framework based on logically derived rules. this is the basis for a clark’s relationship to the world
scotts act: (a) scott’s relationship with their world, being that of a predator in a world of predator and prey, begins and ends with action, movement, attack, retreat, aggression and submission, (as a predator) there is not a particular need for reasons or explanations, for predictability or rationality, life (for the predator) is to live. this is ‘the basis’ for a scotts relationship with the world
rogers feel: (a) roger’s relationship with the world begins and ends with their feelings, emotions, appreciation and sentimentality. they know that the world is perfect, at least it is on the most fundamental of levels, what we hear as words are, in fact, their feelings about the world and the events and their actions involving the world around them. this is ‘the premise’ for a roger’s relationship with the world
So. Are we saying that clarks are little computers and scotts are animals and rogers are big, gelatinous masses of feelings? no, of course not! (well, maybe a little… but nothing weird, ya know?)
What we are trying to convey is this:
- clarks think (about the world and think the world thinks and makes sense and can be understood with the intellect along)
- scotts act (and though they feel affection and love, hate and remorse and understand that people are different, life is meant to be lived…now while running and yelling)
- rogers feel (they appreciate that people might not get that and they sense that others are trying to reach them but there is a Right Way and there is frivolity and life is too serious a matter to waste effort on anything but living)
yeah, I know… gotta pace myself for the week ahead! so how about a little music? a little bit on the long side, a touch of an oldie but what the hell…
About clarkscottroger
So this morning I woke up too early, and thought that I would stay away from computer today…cuz the damn phone is so frustrating… then somewhere around 4 or so someone found me a laptop….didn’t even have to ask…
So…. then I read the early morning Doctrine report… and something clicks… I KNOW! Nothing is clicking lately… but I read for the, Oh I don’t know how many times… that “the person with a predominant clarklike worldview expects it to make sense, be understandable, be (somewhat) predictable and, therefore, fit into a framework based on logically derived rules.” Well of course they do and that’s why I am batshit crazy lately (cuz things have gotten nuts) and Roger being a “big, gelatinous mass of feelings” has taken over a predominant space in my head …. It all makes sense to me now… yknow?
Thanks Clark, especially for Elvin and the Hopper.
I define my world in terms of scotts, rogers, and clarks thanks to you. Friends near and far – even watching the Olympics, you can (usually) tell the clarks, scotts and rogers with the eyes…and now, I will get back to my regularly programmed life of teaching and coursework. Have a great day!
lol
there are no coincidences: here is what I was going to put over at your other post: check out the hat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7FGbhpr2pg
Well, the best way to understand the Roger is with structure. They empathize, yet there is a right way to do things.
Michelle
agreed… and that is the ‘part that shows’ for us non-rogers, the structure, the order… it hints at much more, but that is where the gulf is greatest, between the rational and the emotional (clarks and rogers, respectively)
Interesting! The emotional structure of the Roger. Still trying to wrap me head around this one myself!
Michelle
yeah, it totally is the hot topic of the day… when one (of a worldview) considers the actions/statements/attitudes of another person (of different worldview) then we should practice saying to ourselves ‘what they are doing ‘represents’ something that I may not be equipped to appreciate to the same level that they are intending it’.
…a little clunky? but it is a good first step to understanding the ‘other two worldviews’ no?
I am always so confused when I read your posts….doesn’t say much about me, does it?
Mike
actually it does (and not anything bad)…it (your finding the Posts confusing*) implies that you are probably not a clark (predominant worldview)..which, of course leaves us two alternatives: scott or roger
lets see what we can do to improve our chances of helping you identify your worldview better than a coin toss…there is a ‘test’ an assessment of sorts that helps that is located here
but I don’t think that that (determining your predominant worldview) is your primary concern…so lets go in a slightly different direction: I find your blog entertaining and fun to read when I get over there… usually from the TToT (when you are in it and on ‘the Facebook’… good humor, nice wry-osity
if there is any specific confusioning that results from reading the Post, I would be happy to address them… btw today’s Post was totally not the easiest of Doctrine Posts to read… I feel that way and I wrote it…lol
thanks for writing in
*there is a general consensus that the writing style here at the Doctrine can at time be…shall we say, circuitous?